free-range politics, organic community

Why leftists should support Bernie

Submitted by gjohnsit on Sat, 04/20/2019 - 12:24am

This essay is meant for those who currently reject Bernie.

I'm not going to sell you with his electability. Although that should factor into your equation, because if having a real chance of winning isn't part of your agenda then you are doing politics wrong.
And let's face it, Bernie has a real chance.

Nor am I going to sell you with who his enemies are and how they are your enemies too.
But admit it, wouldn't it give you a thrill to see these assholes crying?

The Vermont Senator, as the Black Agenda Report has noted again and again, is an imperialist pig who is running within a corporate political party. Sanders is no socialist and he is no revolutionary.He is a product of a political moment where the domination of corporate and military power in the political life of the United States reigns supreme.

That's right. The article I'm going to sell you on Bernie, just called him "an imperialist pig who is running within a corporate political party". And it get's worse.

Anti-imperialism, internationalism, and socialism are critical components of a truly left agenda. On these counts, Sanders fails miserably. Thus, Sanders must be condemned every time that he follows the lead of the military-industrial complex in its assault on nations such as Venezuela.

Ouch!
So given all of that, why should a leftist support Bernie?
Because any student of history knows that revolutionary change never happens in just one step.
There is always catalyst events and catalyst people.
Think Lafayette and the French Revolution.

Corporations such as Comcast, which owns MSNBC, or billionaires such as Bezos, who owns The Washington Post, understand that the Sanders agenda is incompatible with the current stage of capitalism.Unlike the days of the New Deal, U.S. imperialism is no longer able to expand without imposing brutal wars and austerity measures on the workers and the oppressed. This inevitable conclusion was reached during the mid to latter half of the 20thcentury when automation, monopoly, and dependency on finance capital sent the worldwide capitalist system into a state of general stagnation.
...Sanders has changed this equation by offering a New Deal political orientation within a corporate entity that is hostile to the very utterance of his agenda. The corporate Democrats truly “fear the Bern” because Sanders represents a dangerous political path that may lead large portions of the working and unemployed population to demand an improvement in their condition.

Bernie can be a catalyst in one of two ways:

1) He wins. Thus he leads large portions of the working and unemployed population to demand an improvement in their condition. This is good.

2) The Democratic Party elites crush him.

It is entirely possible that the second-crushing of the Sanders campaign will create the conditions for a mass exodus from the Democratic Party. Independent left political thought and action can only benefit from the further disenchantment with the Democratic Party among Sanders’ large base. The job of a revolutionary is not to support Sanders or any political functionary within the capitalist ruling system. It is to seize the moment when the capitalist and imperialist ruling system in the U.S reaches a point of crisis from which it cannot return. Sanders’ 2020 campaign is another step toward that point of no return for the lords of war and austerity. The ruling class doesn’t ignore this fact for one second and neither should we.

when one considers what degree of dishonesty and deception (including self-deception) and, in the end, general “the end justifies the means” Machiavellian moral turpitude will eventually be involved . . .

Each person has to ask themselves, “If I follow this suggestion, to what extent will that involve me deliberately lying to others, pretending for others’ ‘benefit,’ impressing upon them that things are true that I know — or could easily know if I bothered to look — to be lies?”

Some people have absolutely no qualms about lying to others if it gets them the effect they want. They’re called sociopaths.

I've argued for and against LOTE on this blog. That disturbs me. yesterday I came to the conclusion that LOTE is bad. Evil is evil, there is no lesser evil. Don't bother picking between two net evils. Yet you can't expect perfection from human beings. You will always be disappointed. On this Easter weekend one can even find fault with Jesus Christ. Why didn't he just sweep away the Sanhedrin and the Roman empire? Why didn't he just institute Judgement Day and save the world 2000 years of agony? See? You can find fault with anybody.

We must distinguish between two evils and an evil compared to a lesser good. An angel with dirty wings so to speak. If a candidate has blemishes, even open sores, but is net good, support him or her.

You are against Israel and won't support a pro-Israel candidate regardless of anything else? You may be right, but I think you will not like most of your fellow travelers. Because while you may object to Israel on grounds of fairness, history, whatever, most of your fellow travelers will be against Israel because of racism. You may be a purist but they are often Aryan purists, people who even today raise the stiff arm.

You object to Imperialism? Well, so do I, but many are just opposed to American Imperialism, but are just fine with Russian Imperialism, Chinese Imperialism, or Muslim Imperialism. If a candidate is against pushing the workers into the mud, but doesn't care about foreign workers, isn't that better than a jack booted Imperialist who hates all workers?

Weigh the pluses and minuses, and support a candidate that is net positive. And, in my mind, capable of winning is a positive.

If NO candidate is net positive, them I think you are right to reject everyone. Why participate in a charade?

If no MAJOR party candidate is acceptable but a third party candidate is, then by all means vote for that candidate even though he/she doesn't have a ghost of a chance. Either as a protest or as an honest attempt to build that party for the future.

It's been pointed out several times here that FDR and LBJ had major failings. But honestly, wouldn't you rather have FDR or LBJ as President than Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton? Just to mention three of a long long dismal line.

when one considers what degree of dishonesty and deception (including self-deception) and, in the end, general “the end justifies the means” Machiavellian moral turpitude will eventually be involved . . .

Each person has to ask themselves, “If I follow this suggestion, to what extent will that involve me deliberately lying to others, pretending for others’ ‘benefit,’ impressing upon them that things are true that I know — or could easily know if I bothered to look — to be lies?”

Some people have absolutely no qualms about lying to others if it gets them the effect they want. They’re called sociopaths.

The questions I’m raising are, how far will you (= myself or any person in general, not you personally) allow yourself to go in supporting a candidate or cause?

To what degree are you willing to lie to, or (which boils down to the same thing) contrive to leave false impressions in the minds of, people you come in contact with and want to influence?

What is the likelihood that you will arrive at a stage of “anything goes” and still justify it to yourself, for the sake of success in your goal?

Am I capable of making clear to people that while I may support Bernie, I also think it is equally important that they know Russiagate is false and any decision on their part to support Bernie also must take that into account? Truth in campaigning? Full disclosure?

Doesn’t seem too likely! We all get so swept up in our own desire for our side to be right and come out on top.

I've argued for and against LOTE on this blog. That disturbs me. yesterday I came to the conclusion that LOTE is bad. Evil is evil, there is no lesser evil. Don't bother picking between two net evils. Yet you can't expect perfection from human beings. You will always be disappointed. On this Easter weekend one can even find fault with Jesus Christ. Why didn't he just sweep away the Sanhedrin and the Roman empire? Why didn't he just institute Judgement Day and save the world 2000 years of agony? See? You can find fault with anybody.

We must distinguish between two evils and an evil compared to a lesser good. An angel with dirty wings so to speak. If a candidate has blemishes, even open sores, but is net good, support him or her.

You are against Israel and won't support a pro-Israel candidate regardless of anything else? You may be right, but I think you will not like most of your fellow travelers. Because while you may object to Israel on grounds of fairness, history, whatever, most of your fellow travelers will be against Israel because of racism. You may be a purist but they are often Aryan purists, people who even today raise the stiff arm.

You object to Imperialism? Well, so do I, but many are just opposed to American Imperialism, but are just fine with Russian Imperialism, Chinese Imperialism, or Muslim Imperialism. If a candidate is against pushing the workers into the mud, but doesn't care about foreign workers, isn't that better than a jack booted Imperialist who hates all workers?

Weigh the pluses and minuses, and support a candidate that is net positive. And, in my mind, capable of winning is a positive.

If NO candidate is net positive, them I think you are right to reject everyone. Why participate in a charade?

If no MAJOR party candidate is acceptable but a third party candidate is, then by all means vote for that candidate even though he/she doesn't have a ghost of a chance. Either as a protest or as an honest attempt to build that party for the future.

It's been pointed out several times here that FDR and LBJ had major failings. But honestly, wouldn't you rather have FDR or LBJ as President than Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton? Just to mention three of a long long dismal line.

The questions I’m raising are, how far will you (= myself or any person in general, not you personally) allow yourself to go in supporting a candidate or cause?

To what degree are you willing to lie to, or (which boils down to the same thing) contrive to leave false impressions in the minds of, people you come in contact with and want to influence?

What is the likelihood that you will arrive at a stage of “anything goes” and still justify it to yourself, for the sake of success in your goal?

Am I capable of making clear to people that while I may support Bernie, I also think it is equally important that they know Russiagate is false and any decision on their part to support Bernie also must take that into account? Truth in campaigning? Full disclosure?

Doesn’t seem too likely! We all get so swept up in our own desire for our side to be right and come out on top.

@gjohnsit@gjohnsit
“How far are we expected to support obvious lies stemming from the Dims perfidious behavior during the last election.” Where do you get off saying if that’s the way that person feels, then they probably shouldn’t vote at all? Maybe you should have answered the question.

EDIT: added quotation mark

#2.1.1
then you shouldn't vote at all.
There's no sense doing it if you take all that upon yourself.

Now maybe I misunderstood. In which case I apologize.
But that certainly sounded like he was taking on a heavy burden, and there is no politician alive worth that.

#2.1.1.1#2.1.1.1
“How far are we expected to support obvious lies stemming from the Dims perfidious behavior during the last election.” Where do you get off saying if that’s the way that person feels, then they probably shouldn’t vote at all? Maybe you should have answered the question.

@gjohnsit
this election season, Bernie or otherwise, I hope each person is inspired by Trump’s 2016 victory in the sense of: “Trust your own judgment, like Trump and his supporters did—don’t listen to the sold-out pundit class and media elites saying your candidate or world view can’t win.”

Apology accepted and may you and those close to you all enjoy the rest of your Easter Sunday.

@The Voice In the Wilderness
greatly preferred HRC over LBJ, at least the Hillary of 2008. Johnson represented the right wing of the GOP in terms of the Cold War and FP attitudes generally, and was stubbornly stupid in those ignorant beliefs. LBJ also greatly benefitted from having a solid 2-1 Dem majority, and a progressive working majority (counting liberal Rs), during most of his tenure. Any Dem this side of George Wallace who was half-sober and knew how to sign his name could have passed that liberal domestic legislation.

At least Hillary showed some ability to listen to reason. (A little less so on Syria/Russia by 2016, it's true.) And by 2008 she had already learned, from her and her husband's experience in the 90s, that the Rs in Congress would be working hard against her, so there would have been far less of the naive attempts, as with Obama, at trying to make friends and craft compromise legislation. No walk in the park, for sure, but likely better results with a HRC/Obama admin in 2008 than with the naive nice guy incrementalist who caved to the MIC that we got.

I've argued for and against LOTE on this blog. That disturbs me. yesterday I came to the conclusion that LOTE is bad. Evil is evil, there is no lesser evil. Don't bother picking between two net evils. Yet you can't expect perfection from human beings. You will always be disappointed. On this Easter weekend one can even find fault with Jesus Christ. Why didn't he just sweep away the Sanhedrin and the Roman empire? Why didn't he just institute Judgement Day and save the world 2000 years of agony? See? You can find fault with anybody.

We must distinguish between two evils and an evil compared to a lesser good. An angel with dirty wings so to speak. If a candidate has blemishes, even open sores, but is net good, support him or her.

You are against Israel and won't support a pro-Israel candidate regardless of anything else? You may be right, but I think you will not like most of your fellow travelers. Because while you may object to Israel on grounds of fairness, history, whatever, most of your fellow travelers will be against Israel because of racism. You may be a purist but they are often Aryan purists, people who even today raise the stiff arm.

You object to Imperialism? Well, so do I, but many are just opposed to American Imperialism, but are just fine with Russian Imperialism, Chinese Imperialism, or Muslim Imperialism. If a candidate is against pushing the workers into the mud, but doesn't care about foreign workers, isn't that better than a jack booted Imperialist who hates all workers?

Weigh the pluses and minuses, and support a candidate that is net positive. And, in my mind, capable of winning is a positive.

If NO candidate is net positive, them I think you are right to reject everyone. Why participate in a charade?

If no MAJOR party candidate is acceptable but a third party candidate is, then by all means vote for that candidate even though he/she doesn't have a ghost of a chance. Either as a protest or as an honest attempt to build that party for the future.

It's been pointed out several times here that FDR and LBJ had major failings. But honestly, wouldn't you rather have FDR or LBJ as President than Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton? Just to mention three of a long long dismal line.

@wokkamile
Hillary Clinton is out for Hillary Clinton and will sell out anyone for a few more dollars that she doesn't even need. Unless her body plumbing is more important to you than anything else, there is no reason to ever vote for Hillary even against Trump. Hillary is the person KNOWN to have dealt with the Russian government for a bribe (excuse me, "charitable donation") and to have solicited Russian aid in the 2016 election, and known to have cheated Bernie sanders and his voters, and KNOWN to have violated security regulations. The only thing I would give her is a punch in the nose.

#2.1 greatly preferred HRC over LBJ, at least the Hillary of 2008. Johnson represented the right wing of the GOP in terms of the Cold War and FP attitudes generally, and was stubbornly stupid in those ignorant beliefs. LBJ also greatly benefitted from having a solid 2-1 Dem majority, and a progressive working majority (counting liberal Rs), during most of his tenure. Any Dem this side of George Wallace who was half-sober and knew how to sign his name could have passed that liberal domestic legislation.

At least Hillary showed some ability to listen to reason. (A little less so on Syria/Russia by 2016, it's true.) And by 2008 she had already learned, from her and her husband's experience in the 90s, that the Rs in Congress would be working hard against her, so there would have been far less of the naive attempts, as with Obama, at trying to make friends and craft compromise legislation. No walk in the park, for sure, but likely better results with a HRC/Obama admin in 2008 than with the naive nice guy incrementalist who caved to the MIC that we got.

@The Voice In the Wilderness
just a carefully qualified answer to the hypothetical choice, specifically noting it referenced the 2008 race. Some however have drunk the Kool Aid on LBJ. Speaking of dishonesty and corruption, Hillary was a piker compared to Lyndon. Rbt Caro was once a good historian, but sold out with his Johnson tomes. Enjoy the (mostly) hagiography.

#2.1.2
Hillary Clinton is out for Hillary Clinton and will sell out anyone for a few more dollars that she doesn't even need. Unless her body plumbing is more important to you than anything else, there is no reason to ever vote for Hillary even against Trump. Hillary is the person KNOWN to have dealt with the Russian government for a bribe (excuse me, "charitable donation") and to have solicited Russian aid in the 2016 election, and known to have cheated Bernie sanders and his voters, and KNOWN to have violated security regulations. The only thing I would give her is a punch in the nose.

No matter how much you might want to examine the Clinton Creature’s psyche, it still comes back to the fact that she’s hateful, one of the most dishonest pol’s it’s ever been our great misfortune to have in this country. She makes Nixon look good.

EDIT: fixed typo and punctuation first paragraph
EDIT EDIT: came back to fix embarrassing typo Johnsin/Johnson

#2.1.2.1 just a carefully qualified answer to the hypothetical choice, specifically noting it referenced the 2008 race. Some however have drunk the Kool Aid on LBJ. Speaking of dishonesty and corruption, Hillary was a piker compared to Lyndon. Rbt Caro was once a good historian, but sold out with his Johnson tomes. Enjoy the (mostly) hagiography.

No matter how much you might want to examine the Clinton Creature’s psyche, it still comes back to the fact that she’s hateful, one of the most dishonest pol’s it’s ever been our great misfortune to have in this country. She makes Nixon look good.

EDIT: fixed typo and punctuation first paragraph
EDIT EDIT: came back to fix embarrassing typo Johnsin/Johnson

@wokkamile
Russian Oligarchs, and dirty politicians to first rig the primary then attempt to rig the election and when that failed, tried to get the guy who WAS elected thrown out, or even better convicted of a crime they made up,

@Amanda Matthews
of "which one was worse," when you're talking about people this awful.

there can't be much doubt that Nixon would have done anything that HRC did, had he had means, need, and opportunity. every campaign he ever ran was rife with dirty tricks and corruption, he had his surrogates question the legitimacy of JFK's victory, he blamed everybody but himself when he lost, he thought HFK was a great guy ...

thinking about it, i'd conclude they're pretty comparable characters.

#2.1.2.1.1.1.1
Russian Oligarchs, and dirty politicians to first rig the primary then attempt to rig the election and when that failed, tried to get the guy who WAS elected thrown out, or even better convicted of a crime they made up,

And you say you support her.

Okay.

up

2 users have voted.

—

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

@Amanda Matthews
in deeply shady activity both in 68 and 72 that had a direct and consequential effect on the outcomes of both. In 68 he and his campaign conspired with a foreign-born citizen (Anna Chennault) w/ties to the SVN govt to stall the Paris Peace Talks in order to prevent the Johnson admin from making a peace breakthrough before the election. The first October Surprise (that we know of). Then in 72 of course the Nixon shenanigans that helped sink the clear Dem frontrunner Muskie which led to their preferred candidate winning the nom.

In both cases Nixon himself was intimately involved in the overall planning and execution of both conspiracies, not to mention the coverup. This is in addition to having his people, and the RNC, quietly but forcefully challenge 1960 election results in about 11 states, including IL, all to no avail. In the view of one author, the 1960 election result for JFK was actually still in question, because of Nixon/GOP Sore Loser efforts, as late as December.

"he thought HFK was a great guy ..." Who is HFK? Or did u mean JFK?? If so, which is very doubtful (this is the Chris Matthews false fairly tale bipartisan story he likes to tell) the feeling wasn't mutual. JFK considered Nixon to be as dishonest (JFK referred to Nixon as "no class") and sleazy as most Dems did at the time, including HST.

I'm not sure Hillary's role in the 2016 primary shenanigans and the Russiagate pseudo scandal has been as firmly established, and the origins of R-gate still seem somewhat murky to me. If she or her campaign instigated it, it does seem interesting how quickly the Intel community jumped on board with their massive propaganda effort, still ongoing. I'd love to have someone point me to a definititve account of both matters laid out by a credible journalist/author, if one exists. Not speculation but a solid evidentiary case.

All that said, this is not of course to endorse HRC -- I voted Jill Stein in the general, and the Bernmeister in the primary. I always worried about her dangerous stance on Syria/Russia. I was more on board with Hillary 08, a key distinction.

#2.1.2.1.1.1.1
Russian Oligarchs, and dirty politicians to first rig the primary then attempt to rig the election and when that failed, tried to get the guy who WAS elected thrown out, or even better convicted of a crime they made up,

HRC permanently, completely, and irrevocably disqualified herself from the presidency when she publicly admitted that, not only was he a good friend of hers (i literally would not let him into my home if he were freezing to death in a blizzard, or being attacked by coyotes), but a diplomatic mentor.

#2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 in deeply shady activity both in 68 and 72 that had a direct and consequential effect on the outcomes of both. In 68 he and his campaign conspired with a foreign-born citizen (Anna Chennault) w/ties to the SVN govt to stall the Paris Peace Talks in order to prevent the Johnson admin from making a peace breakthrough before the election. The first October Surprise (that we know of). Then in 72 of course the Nixon shenanigans that helped sink the clear Dem frontrunner Muskie which led to their preferred candidate winning the nom.

In both cases Nixon himself was intimately involved in the overall planning and execution of both conspiracies, not to mention the coverup. This is in addition to having his people, and the RNC, quietly but forcefully challenge 1960 election results in about 11 states, including IL, all to no avail. In the view of one author, the 1960 election result for JFK was actually still in question, because of Nixon/GOP Sore Loser efforts, as late as December.

"he thought HFK was a great guy ..." Who is HFK? Or did u mean JFK?? If so, which is very doubtful (this is the Chris Matthews false fairly tale bipartisan story he likes to tell) the feeling wasn't mutual. JFK considered Nixon to be as dishonest (JFK referred to Nixon as "no class") and sleazy as most Dems did at the time, including HST.

I'm not sure Hillary's role in the 2016 primary shenanigans and the Russiagate pseudo scandal has been as firmly established, and the origins of R-gate still seem somewhat murky to me. If she or her campaign instigated it, it does seem interesting how quickly the Intel community jumped on board with their massive propaganda effort, still ongoing. I'd love to have someone point me to a definititve account of both matters laid out by a credible journalist/author, if one exists. Not speculation but a solid evidentiary case.

All that said, this is not of course to endorse HRC -- I voted Jill Stein in the general, and the Bernmeister in the primary. I always worried about her dangerous stance on Syria/Russia. I was more on board with Hillary 08, a key distinction.

up

5 users have voted.

—

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

@UntimelyRippd
hyperbole. i absolutely would turn that man away into the hungry jaws of a pack of predators, and if i had the presence of mind i would record his screams for the edification of the millions of his victims who are still alive.

HRC permanently, completely, and irrevocably disqualified herself from the presidency when she publicly admitted that, not only was he a good friend of hers (i literally would not let him into my home if he were freezing to death in a blizzard, or being attacked by coyotes), but a diplomatic mentor.

up

2 users have voted.

—

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

@wokkamile
of HRC '08, versus HRC '16. Nixon, too, went through at least two significant metamorphoses -- thus, "The New Nixon," and "The New, New Nixon".

We are looking at two fundamentally charmless individuals searching for the magic formula that will get them what they want.

Both are/were known for their petty vindictiveness as well.

I think one large difference is that Nixon appeared to be cripplingly insecure, whereas HRC clearly has an ego the size of Martha's Vineyard.

#2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 in deeply shady activity both in 68 and 72 that had a direct and consequential effect on the outcomes of both. In 68 he and his campaign conspired with a foreign-born citizen (Anna Chennault) w/ties to the SVN govt to stall the Paris Peace Talks in order to prevent the Johnson admin from making a peace breakthrough before the election. The first October Surprise (that we know of). Then in 72 of course the Nixon shenanigans that helped sink the clear Dem frontrunner Muskie which led to their preferred candidate winning the nom.

In both cases Nixon himself was intimately involved in the overall planning and execution of both conspiracies, not to mention the coverup. This is in addition to having his people, and the RNC, quietly but forcefully challenge 1960 election results in about 11 states, including IL, all to no avail. In the view of one author, the 1960 election result for JFK was actually still in question, because of Nixon/GOP Sore Loser efforts, as late as December.

"he thought HFK was a great guy ..." Who is HFK? Or did u mean JFK?? If so, which is very doubtful (this is the Chris Matthews false fairly tale bipartisan story he likes to tell) the feeling wasn't mutual. JFK considered Nixon to be as dishonest (JFK referred to Nixon as "no class") and sleazy as most Dems did at the time, including HST.

I'm not sure Hillary's role in the 2016 primary shenanigans and the Russiagate pseudo scandal has been as firmly established, and the origins of R-gate still seem somewhat murky to me. If she or her campaign instigated it, it does seem interesting how quickly the Intel community jumped on board with their massive propaganda effort, still ongoing. I'd love to have someone point me to a definititve account of both matters laid out by a credible journalist/author, if one exists. Not speculation but a solid evidentiary case.

All that said, this is not of course to endorse HRC -- I voted Jill Stein in the general, and the Bernmeister in the primary. I always worried about her dangerous stance on Syria/Russia. I was more on board with Hillary 08, a key distinction.

up

2 users have voted.

—

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

I'm not sure Hillary's role in the 2016 primary shenanigans and the Russiagate pseudo scandal has been as firmly established...

Why, maybe it was some other lying war who’re who paid for that Dossier and the poor thing didn’t know how everything was being rigged, ruined, and destroyed by all the other liars trying to get her elected.

Poor Shillary, always the proverbial victim of other people’s circumstances.

#2.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 in deeply shady activity both in 68 and 72 that had a direct and consequential effect on the outcomes of both. In 68 he and his campaign conspired with a foreign-born citizen (Anna Chennault) w/ties to the SVN govt to stall the Paris Peace Talks in order to prevent the Johnson admin from making a peace breakthrough before the election. The first October Surprise (that we know of). Then in 72 of course the Nixon shenanigans that helped sink the clear Dem frontrunner Muskie which led to their preferred candidate winning the nom.

In both cases Nixon himself was intimately involved in the overall planning and execution of both conspiracies, not to mention the coverup. This is in addition to having his people, and the RNC, quietly but forcefully challenge 1960 election results in about 11 states, including IL, all to no avail. In the view of one author, the 1960 election result for JFK was actually still in question, because of Nixon/GOP Sore Loser efforts, as late as December.

"he thought HFK was a great guy ..." Who is HFK? Or did u mean JFK?? If so, which is very doubtful (this is the Chris Matthews false fairly tale bipartisan story he likes to tell) the feeling wasn't mutual. JFK considered Nixon to be as dishonest (JFK referred to Nixon as "no class") and sleazy as most Dems did at the time, including HST.

I'm not sure Hillary's role in the 2016 primary shenanigans and the Russiagate pseudo scandal has been as firmly established, and the origins of R-gate still seem somewhat murky to me. If she or her campaign instigated it, it does seem interesting how quickly the Intel community jumped on board with their massive propaganda effort, still ongoing. I'd love to have someone point me to a definititve account of both matters laid out by a credible journalist/author, if one exists. Not speculation but a solid evidentiary case.

All that said, this is not of course to endorse HRC -- I voted Jill Stein in the general, and the Bernmeister in the primary. I always worried about her dangerous stance on Syria/Russia. I was more on board with Hillary 08, a key distinction.

#2.1.2.1 just a carefully qualified answer to the hypothetical choice, specifically noting it referenced the 2008 race. Some however have drunk the Kool Aid on LBJ. Speaking of dishonesty and corruption, Hillary was a piker compared to Lyndon. Rbt Caro was once a good historian, but sold out with his Johnson tomes. Enjoy the (mostly) hagiography.

@lotlizard
Have AGs always had the power to grant wiretap permission? I read about the following in a book, The Judas Factor: The Plot to Kill Malcolm X. No judge granted permission. Robert Kennedy did.

According to author Evan Thomas, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, President Kennedy's younger brother, was able to arrange a deal with J. Edgar Hoover to quell mention of the Rometsch allegations in the Senate investigation of Bobby Baker. Hoover successfully limited the Senate investigation of Baker by threatening to release embarrassing information about senators contained in FBI files. In exchange for this favor, Robert Kennedy assured Hoover that his job as FBI Director was secure. Robert Kennedy also agreed to allow the FBI to proceed with wiretaps that Hoover had requested on Martin Luther King to try to prove King's close confidants and advisers were communists.[16] Although Kennedy only gave written approval for limited wiretapping of King's phones "on a trial basis, for a month or so," Hoover extended the clearance so his men were "unshackled" to look for evidence in any areas of King's life they deemed worthy.[17]

@Deja
Written approval is not a warrant. It would still have a taken a judge to issue a warrant in order to satisfy the 4th amendment.

#2.1.2.1.1.2
Have AGs always had the power to grant wiretap permission? I read about the following in a book, The Judas Factor: The Plot to Kill Malcolm X. No judge granted permission. Robert Kennedy did.

According to author Evan Thomas, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, President Kennedy's younger brother, was able to arrange a deal with J. Edgar Hoover to quell mention of the Rometsch allegations in the Senate investigation of Bobby Baker. Hoover successfully limited the Senate investigation of Baker by threatening to release embarrassing information about senators contained in FBI files. In exchange for this favor, Robert Kennedy assured Hoover that his job as FBI Director was secure. Robert Kennedy also agreed to allow the FBI to proceed with wiretaps that Hoover had requested on Martin Luther King to try to prove King's close confidants and advisers were communists.[16] Although Kennedy only gave written approval for limited wiretapping of King's phones "on a trial basis, for a month or so," Hoover extended the clearance so his men were "unshackled" to look for evidence in any areas of King's life they deemed worthy.[17]

@davidgmillsatty
That's what I thought too. But I read about Bobby, our own "royalty", saying to just go ahead and do it (not just on MLK, but Malcolm X too), in the book I mentioned; and then, it showed up in that link too.

You mean our own "D" royalty was crooked? (/s) Decades later, we get to see just what slimy bastards they all were, not just the ones we were necessarily told were crooked, all along. Blech!

#2.1.2.1.1.2.1 Written approval is not a warrant. It would still have a taken a judge to issue a warrant in order to satisfy the 4th amendment.

@Deja
I am sure there have been countless times our government thought that the fourth amendment was just a suggestion and not the law of the land. In actuality, the government can totally ignore the fourth amendment and do whatever it wants. It would just face huge obstacles in court. But if blackmail is your game, who gives a shit about a warrant?

#2.1.2.1.1.2.1.1
That's what I thought too. But I read about Bobby, our own "royalty", saying to just go ahead and do it (not just on MLK, but Malcolm X too), in the book I mentioned; and then, it showed up in that link too.

You mean our own "D" royalty was crooked? (/s) Decades later, we get to see just what slimy bastards they all were, not just the ones we were necessarily told were crooked, all along. Blech!

Everyone in the humanistic cool capitalist business scene thinks that "listening" is da bomb. Politicians like Hillary Clinton who will say ANYTHING to get elected know how to "listen." In the end, all of their listening to reason amounts to nothing because their motives suck, and they are where they are because the logic propelling the capitalist system put them where they are.

#2.1 greatly preferred HRC over LBJ, at least the Hillary of 2008. Johnson represented the right wing of the GOP in terms of the Cold War and FP attitudes generally, and was stubbornly stupid in those ignorant beliefs. LBJ also greatly benefitted from having a solid 2-1 Dem majority, and a progressive working majority (counting liberal Rs), during most of his tenure. Any Dem this side of George Wallace who was half-sober and knew how to sign his name could have passed that liberal domestic legislation.

At least Hillary showed some ability to listen to reason. (A little less so on Syria/Russia by 2016, it's true.) And by 2008 she had already learned, from her and her husband's experience in the 90s, that the Rs in Congress would be working hard against her, so there would have been far less of the naive attempts, as with Obama, at trying to make friends and craft compromise legislation. No walk in the park, for sure, but likely better results with a HRC/Obama admin in 2008 than with the naive nice guy incrementalist who caved to the MIC that we got.

up

5 users have voted.

—

"The degree to which liberals are coming to inhabit an alternate reality, impenetrable by facts or reason, is actually frightening." -- Steve Maher

@The Voice In the Wilderness
Probably everybody here had, by 2016 if not much earlier, reached their limit with LOTE voting, and the extortionate demands the Democratic Party has always made in demanding it. It was very liberating for me to vote for Jill Stein, and to go to the Den of Morons to tell them all I did. Hillary drew a line I would not cross, and won't ever again.

Reading through a bit of the conversation here, I find lots of people with different personal answers to the question of where that line is, if indeed any line is worth crossing. The thing I like about coming here is that you can discuss your own views without aggressive proselytizing from those with a different view (mostly...). This thread is a great example of that.

Personally, I will vote for Bernie even though I haven't yet decided whether I'll work for or donate to him. As a front-runner he's in a very different position now than he was in 2016, and some accommodation to the Democratic Party is inevitable. I've been suprised how little he's shown so far. He seems to have learned a lot from last time, and is positioning himself much more smartly. It still looks like his main aim is to advance his politics by bringing the Democrats along, rather than compromising too much to win. Whether he'll be able to keep that up or not, time will tell. And time will tell what secret deals he may or may not make as well. I doubt he's done that yet -- he shouldn't trust the Dems enough to be making deals with them.

The main values of Bernie's campaign as I see them still lie in changing the terms of debate; in reintroducing Americans to social democratic concepts and issues; and in giving a path for disempowered people to find a way to seize power. In these areas I trust Bernie to hold fast -- though I'm waiting to be disappointed. I didn't like his campaigning for Hillary, but it put him in the position he's in now, and at least he didn't get her elected. I don't agree with a lot of his stands, especially on foreign policy, but who else is going to empower those in government with views preferable to his? Warren is a great policy wonk, but she lacks the political "it" factor that lets a campaign take flight (at least so far), and I take her at her word that she's a capitalist, so I trust Bernie more.

I can certainly understand those who won't cross the line for Bernie, and have no quarrel with their views. We all have to draw the line for ourselves, somewhere or other. But that's where I'm drawing mine, at least for today.

I've argued for and against LOTE on this blog. That disturbs me. yesterday I came to the conclusion that LOTE is bad. Evil is evil, there is no lesser evil. Don't bother picking between two net evils. Yet you can't expect perfection from human beings. You will always be disappointed. On this Easter weekend one can even find fault with Jesus Christ. Why didn't he just sweep away the Sanhedrin and the Roman empire? Why didn't he just institute Judgement Day and save the world 2000 years of agony? See? You can find fault with anybody.

We must distinguish between two evils and an evil compared to a lesser good. An angel with dirty wings so to speak. If a candidate has blemishes, even open sores, but is net good, support him or her.

You are against Israel and won't support a pro-Israel candidate regardless of anything else? You may be right, but I think you will not like most of your fellow travelers. Because while you may object to Israel on grounds of fairness, history, whatever, most of your fellow travelers will be against Israel because of racism. You may be a purist but they are often Aryan purists, people who even today raise the stiff arm.

You object to Imperialism? Well, so do I, but many are just opposed to American Imperialism, but are just fine with Russian Imperialism, Chinese Imperialism, or Muslim Imperialism. If a candidate is against pushing the workers into the mud, but doesn't care about foreign workers, isn't that better than a jack booted Imperialist who hates all workers?

Weigh the pluses and minuses, and support a candidate that is net positive. And, in my mind, capable of winning is a positive.

If NO candidate is net positive, them I think you are right to reject everyone. Why participate in a charade?

If no MAJOR party candidate is acceptable but a third party candidate is, then by all means vote for that candidate even though he/she doesn't have a ghost of a chance. Either as a protest or as an honest attempt to build that party for the future.

It's been pointed out several times here that FDR and LBJ had major failings. But honestly, wouldn't you rather have FDR or LBJ as President than Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton? Just to mention three of a long long dismal line.

I've argued for and against LOTE on this blog. That disturbs me. yesterday I came to the conclusion that LOTE is bad. Evil is evil, there is no lesser evil. Don't bother picking between two net evils. Yet you can't expect perfection from human beings. You will always be disappointed. On this Easter weekend one can even find fault with Jesus Christ. Why didn't he just sweep away the Sanhedrin and the Roman empire? Why didn't he just institute Judgement Day and save the world 2000 years of agony? See? You can find fault with anybody.

We must distinguish between two evils and an evil compared to a lesser good. An angel with dirty wings so to speak. If a candidate has blemishes, even open sores, but is net good, support him or her.

You are against Israel and won't support a pro-Israel candidate regardless of anything else? You may be right, but I think you will not like most of your fellow travelers. Because while you may object to Israel on grounds of fairness, history, whatever, most of your fellow travelers will be against Israel because of racism. You may be a purist but they are often Aryan purists, people who even today raise the stiff arm.

You object to Imperialism? Well, so do I, but many are just opposed to American Imperialism, but are just fine with Russian Imperialism, Chinese Imperialism, or Muslim Imperialism. If a candidate is against pushing the workers into the mud, but doesn't care about foreign workers, isn't that better than a jack booted Imperialist who hates all workers?

Weigh the pluses and minuses, and support a candidate that is net positive. And, in my mind, capable of winning is a positive.

If NO candidate is net positive, them I think you are right to reject everyone. Why participate in a charade?

If no MAJOR party candidate is acceptable but a third party candidate is, then by all means vote for that candidate even though he/she doesn't have a ghost of a chance. Either as a protest or as an honest attempt to build that party for the future.

It's been pointed out several times here that FDR and LBJ had major failings. But honestly, wouldn't you rather have FDR or LBJ as President than Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton? Just to mention three of a long long dismal line.

Weigh the pluses and minuses, and support a candidate that is net positive. And, in my mind, capable of winning is a positive.

If NO candidate is net positive, them I think you are right to reject everyone. Why participate in a charade?

There is a difference between LOTE voting and overlooking some flaws.

up

2 users have voted.

—

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

This is one of those articles that makes me appreciate them. Thanks for posting it. The point they make about estab Dems stealing it again is the same point Jimmy Dore makes. Corner everyone and let them show their true colors. Nothing lasts forever. If you push hard enough, long enough, something will give. If Bernie turns out to be another Obama, that ought to create enough anger to finally get a new party. If not, we win again.

I am disappointed in Bernie. Tulsi is always where Bernie should be and isn’t, but she will never win. Never ever. If this goes to superdelegates, say hello to Biden. It’s his turn.

I’m still not sending Bernie money, or anyone else for that matter. At least not during the primary.

Quite likely, we will never see our ideal candidate. Our voting choices in a general election for some time have been the Republicrat nominee, the Demlican nominee or someone who has not a prayer in hell of winning. It's very probable that politicians willing and able to run for POTUS have only a few crappy options as well.

Not everyone is a Nader, who (a) had name recognition; (b) offered the left something different from Democrats and (c) was willing to wear himself out campaigning and suing over ballot access, knowing from the off that he would lose badly. (And, candidly, I was too stupid to vote for him when he ran anyway.)

Despite having bones to pick with him, I can live with voting for Bernie. I just will not pretend that he is all I hoped he would be. Russ Feingold, the only Senator to vote against both the war in Iraq and the unconstitutional Patriot Act, probably came closest and look what they did to him. (I've read that his experience may have pushed even him to the right.) Same for Kucinich, Barbara Lee, Mike Capuano--anyone whose votes I largely admired.

This board is interesting in that it shows how much people who want pretty much the same things from federal government can differ from each other about how best to proceed.

This is one of those articles that makes me appreciate them. Thanks for posting it. The point they make about estab Dems stealing it again is the same point Jimmy Dore makes. Corner everyone and let them show their true colors. Nothing lasts forever. If you push hard enough, long enough, something will give. If Bernie turns out to be another Obama, that ought to create enough anger to finally get a new party. If not, we win again.

I am disappointed in Bernie. Tulsi is always where Bernie should be and isn’t, but she will never win. Never ever. If this goes to superdelegates, say hello to Biden. It’s his turn.

I’m still not sending Bernie money, or anyone else for that matter. At least not during the primary.

You are I are definitely on the same page. I may even be more open than you because I am also willing to vote for Warren because of her "policy promises". I will continue to criticize Bernie and do my best to move him left, but I can't do it alone. I've been beating him relentlessly on social media and not a dent.

Bernie is 90% of what I could ask for, and I've never been one of those people who complain about a B+ instead of an A. The irony of having this go to a second round for super delegates to interfere with is that it will also be the left's fault, mainly Bernie supporters. They spearheaded a drive on Twitter to get Tulsi on the debate stage. I don't know what miracle or benefit they are hoping for. Any candidate that has to plea for a $1 contribution to make the debate stage shouldn't be there imo opinion. I know, I'm as guilty as the others. I contributed to Tulsi and to Gravel, neither of whom have a snow balls chance in hell, for that very purpose. I suppose putting the blame where it really belongs is called for - Democrats and their corrupt super delegate system.

Quite likely, we will never see our ideal candidate. Our voting choices in a general election for some time have been the Republicrat nominee, the Demlican nominee or someone who has not a prayer in hell of winning. It's very probable that politicians willing and able to run for POTUS have only a few crappy options as well.

Not everyone is a Nader, who (a) had name recognition; (b) offered the left something different from Democrats and (c) was willing to wear himself out campaigning and suing over ballot access, knowing from the off that he would lose badly. (And, candidly, I was too stupid to vote for him when he ran anyway.)

Despite having bones to pick with him, I can live with voting for Bernie. I just will not pretend that he is all I hoped he would be. Russ Feingold, the only Senator to vote against both the war in Iraq and the unconstitutional Patriot Act, probably came closest and look what they did to him. (I've read that his experience may have pushed even him to the right.) Same for Kucinich, Barbara Lee, Mike Capuano--anyone whose votes I largely admired.

This board is interesting in that it shows how much people who want pretty much the same things from federal government can differ from each other about how best to proceed.

I started not trusting her, tried to listen to my friends and started to come around some, and then, like a rubber band that stretched too far, snapped back to not trusting her. Doesnt't mean I'm right. Means only I can't find it in me to trust her. I don't hold it against anyone who feels differently about her. For all I know, you're/they're right and I'm wrong.

But, compare how Tulsi lost her spot with the DNC to protest the DNC's favoritism. She stood up because the DNC was violating its own charter. Even though I was all in for Bernie back then, it didn't matter to me that she was standing up for Bernie: It mattered to me that she was standing up for the DNC to do what was right.

You are I are definitely on the same page. I may even be more open than you because I am also willing to vote for Warren because of her "policy promises". I will continue to criticize Bernie and do my best to move him left, but I can't do it alone. I've been beating him relentlessly on social media and not a dent.

Bernie is 90% of what I could ask for, and I've never been one of those people who complain about a B+ instead of an A. The irony of having this go to a second round for super delegates to interfere with is that it will also be the left's fault, mainly Bernie supporters. They spearheaded a drive on Twitter to get Tulsi on the debate stage. I don't know what miracle or benefit they are hoping for. Any candidate that has to plea for a $1 contribution to make the debate stage shouldn't be there imo opinion. I know, I'm as guilty as the others. I contributed to Tulsi and to Gravel, neither of whom have a snow balls chance in hell, for that very purpose. I suppose putting the blame where it really belongs is called for - Democrats and their corrupt super delegate system.

No, I don't particularly trust her, but under the right set of circumstances, she could be very good. She is a total wonk when it comes to finance. No one gets it better than she does. For this reason alone I would vote for her if she is the candidate. She has a better chance of being the Dem primary winner than Tulsi. Neither have a shot at beating Trump unless it is blue no matter who and people are just running away from every GOP candidate like they did in 2018. 2018 was a tsunami, but it had nothing to do with liking Democrats and everything to do with hating the GOP. Bernie will beat Trump either way because of his appeal to Independents and Republicans. Ann Coulter said she would vote for him and work for him with one small caveat on immigration. Obama won without the PUMAs, and Bernie doesn't need them either.

I started not trusting her, tried to listen to my friends and started to come around some, and then, like a rubber band that stretched too far, snapped back to not trusting her. Doesnt't mean I'm right. Means only I can't find it in me to trust her. I don't hold it against anyone who feels differently about her. For all I know, you're/they're right and I'm wrong.

But, compare how Tulsi lost her spot with the DNC to protest the DNC's favoritism. She stood up because the DNC was violating its own charter. Even though I was all in for Bernie back then, it didn't matter to me that she was standing up for Bernie: It mattered to me that she was standing up for the DNC to do what was right.

No, I don't particularly trust her, but under the right set of circumstances, she could be very good. She is a total wonk when it comes to finance. No one gets it better than she does. For this reason alone I would vote for her if she is the candidate. She has a better chance of being the Dem primary winner than Tulsi. Neither have a shot at beating Trump unless it is blue no matter who and people are just running away from every GOP candidate like they did in 2018. 2018 was a tsunami, but it had nothing to do with liking Democrats and everything to do with hating the GOP. Bernie will beat Trump either way because of his appeal to Independents and Republicans. Ann Coulter said she would vote for him and work for him with one small caveat on immigration. Obama won without the PUMAs, and Bernie doesn't need them either.

@dkmich
Good analogy. And I would vote for C against a D or F. Maybe, just maybe a D against an F (I did hold my nose and vote for Kerry, mostly because of Cheney. I would have campaigned for Dean).
But not a F against an F- which was my opinion of 2016.

You are I are definitely on the same page. I may even be more open than you because I am also willing to vote for Warren because of her "policy promises". I will continue to criticize Bernie and do my best to move him left, but I can't do it alone. I've been beating him relentlessly on social media and not a dent.

Bernie is 90% of what I could ask for, and I've never been one of those people who complain about a B+ instead of an A. The irony of having this go to a second round for super delegates to interfere with is that it will also be the left's fault, mainly Bernie supporters. They spearheaded a drive on Twitter to get Tulsi on the debate stage. I don't know what miracle or benefit they are hoping for. Any candidate that has to plea for a $1 contribution to make the debate stage shouldn't be there imo opinion. I know, I'm as guilty as the others. I contributed to Tulsi and to Gravel, neither of whom have a snow balls chance in hell, for that very purpose. I suppose putting the blame where it really belongs is called for - Democrats and their corrupt super delegate system.

line to draw and not cross. I think the line is also constantly moving based on the candidates. At least that is true to for me.

#4.1.1
Good analogy. And I would vote for C against a D or F. Maybe, just maybe a D against an F (I did hold my nose and vote for Kerry, mostly because of Cheney. I would have campaigned for Dean).
But not a F against an F- which was my opinion of 2016.

I too have problems with Bernie (some of which are specific to me), but none of them have pushed him out of the top slot. At least I feel like I could have a reasonable discussion with him about any of them.

You are I are definitely on the same page. I may even be more open than you because I am also willing to vote for Warren because of her "policy promises". I will continue to criticize Bernie and do my best to move him left, but I can't do it alone. I've been beating him relentlessly on social media and not a dent.

Bernie is 90% of what I could ask for, and I've never been one of those people who complain about a B+ instead of an A. The irony of having this go to a second round for super delegates to interfere with is that it will also be the left's fault, mainly Bernie supporters. They spearheaded a drive on Twitter to get Tulsi on the debate stage. I don't know what miracle or benefit they are hoping for. Any candidate that has to plea for a $1 contribution to make the debate stage shouldn't be there imo opinion. I know, I'm as guilty as the others. I contributed to Tulsi and to Gravel, neither of whom have a snow balls chance in hell, for that very purpose. I suppose putting the blame where it really belongs is called for - Democrats and their corrupt super delegate system.

up

12 users have voted.

—

We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg

I too have problems with Bernie (some of which are specific to me), but none of them have pushed him out of the top slot. At least I feel like I could have a reasonable discussion with him about any of them.

@dkmich
for Bernie unless there is a progressive majority elected in 2020 to Congress. He can't dictate legislation in our system. Fairer to judge on whether he makes the concerted effort to get meaningful legislation done, using all the powers of his office and his political capital.

#4.1.1.3.1 for Bernie unless there is a progressive majority elected in 2020 to Congress. He can't dictate legislation in our system. Fairer to judge on whether he makes the concerted effort to get meaningful legislation done, using all the powers of his office and his political capital.

Trump has the pundit class and media elites jumping on his every tweet and utterance like a cat chasing a laser dot. It’s a shame he doesn’t seem to have much of a plan—if he did, he could really have become the people’s tribune, leading the political establishment around by the nose.

Trump has the pundit class and media elites jumping on his every tweet and utterance like a cat chasing a laser dot. It’s a shame he doesn’t seem to have much of a plan—if he did, he could really have become the people’s tribune, leading the political establishment around by the nose.

many have noted. Not standing up against the brazen and arrogant theft in the 2016 primary diminished my view of him dramatically. Supporting Hillary after she stole his pants, shit on them, then lit them on fire as he was handing her his underpants, made me wretch. And then there's the Russia shit.

I won't donate to him the way I did in 2016, but I haven't given up on him as a force for good. His lack of an apology to his 2016 donors, or even an explanation for why he didn't push back against the cheating does make me wonder if he would cower equally against the cloaks and daggers of special interests if he were president. I simply don't know.

But I do know that he is on the short list of candidates that I could vote for without holding my nose. He's not the guy I thought was running in 2016. He has fallen a long way down from there.

thinks that Bernie can't win because of socialism. Maybe this time, Luntz's head is stuck in the sand.

I didn't think anyone could beat Trump (maybe Hickenlooper), but with the medical issues thrust to the forefront again and everyone hating the insurance companies, Bernie could do it.

I have employer sponsored coverage, and I hate it. It makes my blood boil that after paying some $600.00 per month (I pay some of it), I still have to pay co-pays for all visits and cannot get any testing done beyond the usual yearly check-up. I had to pay for a chest x-ray. Really? I had to pay bigger copays to get some physical therapy. Really? After paying over $6,000.00 a year, I am still paying out of pocket.

The repubs could lose on this issue alone.

(Biden just seems so anemic next to Trump, not to mention that Biden is running against his entire history now)

@dfarrah
For a lot of the same reasons that Trump won even though the whole establishment was against him.

thinks that Bernie can't win because of socialism. Maybe this time, Luntz's head is stuck in the sand.

I didn't think anyone could beat Trump (maybe Hickenlooper), but with the medical issues thrust to the forefront again and everyone hating the insurance companies, Bernie could do it.

I have employer sponsored coverage, and I hate it. It makes my blood boil that after paying some $600.00 per month (I pay some of it), I still have to pay co-pays for all visits and cannot get any testing done beyond the usual yearly check-up. I had to pay for a chest x-ray. Really? I had to pay bigger copays to get some physical therapy. Really? After paying over $6,000.00 a year, I am still paying out of pocket.

The repubs could lose on this issue alone.

(Biden just seems so anemic next to Trump, not to mention that Biden is running against his entire history now)

Tulsi Gabbard could win, if she won the nomination and the Dem establishment stepped up behind her 100%.

Anybody suggesting that Bernie can't win is mistaken.

#7
For a lot of the same reasons that Trump won even though the whole establishment was against him.

up

16 users have voted.

—

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

@dfarrah
has the shopworn, old establishment guard, out of step with the times flavor of Hubert Humphrey of 1968, with Bernie, Tulsi and maybe Liz, as RFK/McCarthy, representing the new more liberal attitudes that attract younger voters. When the establishment faction won the nom, enough of the antiwar left stayed home in the fall, enabling the truly odious and corrupt Nixon.

The 68 scenario could play out again, with the left staying home if Biden is nominated. Unless it's the 72 scenario, where the most liberal McGovern-like candidate wins (Bernie) and the horrified establishment wing (Lyndon/Connally/Big Labor Leaders back then) flees into the arms of Nixon or, more likely in 2020, stays home.

A major recession hitting in 2020 would definitely improve Dems chances of winning, with either Bernie or Biden.

thinks that Bernie can't win because of socialism. Maybe this time, Luntz's head is stuck in the sand.

I didn't think anyone could beat Trump (maybe Hickenlooper), but with the medical issues thrust to the forefront again and everyone hating the insurance companies, Bernie could do it.

I have employer sponsored coverage, and I hate it. It makes my blood boil that after paying some $600.00 per month (I pay some of it), I still have to pay co-pays for all visits and cannot get any testing done beyond the usual yearly check-up. I had to pay for a chest x-ray. Really? I had to pay bigger copays to get some physical therapy. Really? After paying over $6,000.00 a year, I am still paying out of pocket.

The repubs could lose on this issue alone.

(Biden just seems so anemic next to Trump, not to mention that Biden is running against his entire history now)

#7 has the shopworn, old establishment guard, out of step with the times flavor of Hubert Humphrey of 1968, with Bernie, Tulsi and maybe Liz, as RFK/McCarthy, representing the new more liberal attitudes that attract younger voters. When the establishment faction won the nom, enough of the antiwar left stayed home in the fall, enabling the truly odious and corrupt Nixon.

The 68 scenario could play out again, with the left staying home if Biden is nominated. Unless it's the 72 scenario, where the most liberal McGovern-like candidate wins (Bernie) and the horrified establishment wing (Lyndon/Connally/Big Labor Leaders back then) flees into the arms of Nixon or, more likely in 2020, stays home.

A major recession hitting in 2020 would definitely improve Dems chances of winning, with either Bernie or Biden.

and if he has momentum throughout the year, I will want to vote for democratic socialism regardless of his partying with murderers. But it will be with enormous anger. He's a few years older than I am, so he's old enough to know the state of California had a free university system when he and I were young, so it's nothing radical and nothing new. He's making the case, but I feel he could make it clearer and stronger. Still, as you say, he's a force in the right direction. Right now I'm with Tulsi Gabbard.

Gabbard's Stop Arming Terrorists Act was co-sponsored by 14 out of 435 members in the House. When it was introduced by Rand Paul in the Senate, it received zero co-sponsors. There were none, last time I looked. That zero would include Senator Sanders.

. . . he's old enough to know the state of California had a free university system when he and I were young, so it's nothing radical and nothing new. He's making the case, but I feel he could make it clearer and stronger.

I agree. People think their taxes will be used to pay for people like Trump's or Clinton's grandkids' tuition. Or, that their investments will be taxed to pay it. They don't think they should have to pay for anyone else to go to college when no one else paid for them, their kids, etc. to go. It's a fair point.

He needs to explain it simply, and repeatedly.

He still has the whole selling out, or rolling over and playing dead in 2016 to explain. Even then, some of us who had our votes stolen (imo), won't go back. That's not even taking into consideration his foreign policy votes, and the whole electronic voting farce as a whole.

Interesting take on "electing" him to facilitate internal change within the corrupt Dem party in this essay. Though I don't see that party allowing it. I think it'll be Creepy Uncle Joe vs Pussy Grabber in Chief. At least they have something in common. Gag!

and if he has momentum throughout the year, I will want to vote for democratic socialism regardless of his partying with murderers. But it will be with enormous anger. He's a few years older than I am, so he's old enough to know the state of California had a free university system when he and I were young, so it's nothing radical and nothing new. He's making the case, but I feel he could make it clearer and stronger. Still, as you say, he's a force in the right direction. Right now I'm with Tulsi Gabbard.

Gabbard's Stop Arming Terrorists Act was co-sponsored by 14 out of 435 members in the House. When it was introduced by Rand Paul in the Senate, it received zero co-sponsors. There were none, last time I looked. That zero would include Senator Sanders.

@Deja
IIRC, California only quit that when a Federal Court (Supremes?) said that they had to consider anyone who lives in California for two weeks a state resident, which essentially meant everyone in the USA could go to CA, live in a motel 6 for two weeks and get free four year tuition. That was obviously untenable. A US law, allowing only citizens or even lawful residents wouldn't have that problem because taxes would be collected from every state not just California.

. . . he's old enough to know the state of California had a free university system when he and I were young, so it's nothing radical and nothing new. He's making the case, but I feel he could make it clearer and stronger.

I agree. People think their taxes will be used to pay for people like Trump's or Clinton's grandkids' tuition. Or, that their investments will be taxed to pay it. They don't think they should have to pay for anyone else to go to college when no one else paid for them, their kids, etc. to go. It's a fair point.

He needs to explain it simply, and repeatedly.

He still has the whole selling out, or rolling over and playing dead in 2016 to explain. Even then, some of us who had our votes stolen (imo), won't go back. That's not even taking into consideration his foreign policy votes, and the whole electronic voting farce as a whole.

Interesting take on "electing" him to facilitate internal change within the corrupt Dem party in this essay. Though I don't see that party allowing it. I think it'll be Creepy Uncle Joe vs Pussy Grabber in Chief. At least they have something in common. Gag!

@The Voice In the Wilderness
I read or heard somewhere that he proposed to collect a very small fee on certain types of stock trades. I don't recall the exact details, but it wasn't a tax. The fact that I can't remember it shows how much msm coverage it got. I dooo recall Trump asking Russia to find Hillary's 30,000 emails, and Her Heinous calling a large chunk of the population a basket of deplorables, though. Sigh . . .

I agree that he needs to explain it, repeatedly. Maybe the msm will screw up and actually give it coverage, especially since it wasn't an across the board tax. Of course, having the population think it's a tax is better for the mainstream candidates.

#8.1
IIRC, California only quit that when a Federal Court (Supremes?) said that they had to consider anyone who lives in California for two weeks a state resident, which essentially meant everyone in the USA could go to CA, live in a motel 6 for two weeks and get free four year tuition. That was obviously untenable. A US law, allowing only citizens or even lawful residents wouldn't have that problem because taxes would be collected from every state not just California.

@Deja
An income tax, that is. In Illinois, schools are primarily funded by property tax while deplorable states like Virginia and California use income tax. Since Texas doesn't have an income tax, I don't know what they use. Do Texas and Florida have schools? You couldn't prove by listening to their citizens on line.

Anyway, I never minded paying income tax no matter what the rate. When I'm working, I pay. When I'm not working I don't have to pay. With property tax when I'm not working, it's a millstone around my neck pulling me under. We are not talking a few hundred dollars a year like in the South and West. Depending on your county a modest home in Illinois can cost $5,000 to $15,000 a year for property tax.

#8.1.1
I read or heard somewhere that he proposed to collect a very small fee on certain types of stock trades. I don't recall the exact details, but it wasn't a tax. The fact that I can't remember it shows how much msm coverage it got. I dooo recall Trump asking Russia to find Hillary's 30,000 emails, and Her Heinous calling a large chunk of the population a basket of deplorables, though. Sigh . . .

I agree that he needs to explain it, repeatedly. Maybe the msm will screw up and actually give it coverage, especially since it wasn't an across the board tax. Of course, having the population think it's a tax is better for the mainstream candidates.

@The Voice In the Wilderness
. . . are opposed to it being funded with a tax. If he could explain how it's not a tax, he'd have more support of regular people.

I had not forgotten your love affair with that imaginary Mason Dixon Line, as if everyone and everything north of it is magically superior, especially online; eveything and everyone south of it is shit stuck to your superior shoe. That attitude says a lot more about those who have it, than southerners.

But what do I know, being a dumb shit kicker who should feel humbled by your mere presence and your willingness to even address me. *eyeroll*

#8.1.1.1
An income tax, that is. In Illinois, schools are primarily funded by property tax while deplorable states like Virginia and California use income tax. Since Texas doesn't have an income tax, I don't know what they use. Do Texas and Florida have schools? You couldn't prove by listening to their citizens on line.

Anyway, I never minded paying income tax no matter what the rate. When I'm working, I pay. When I'm not working I don't have to pay. With property tax when I'm not working, it's a millstone around my neck pulling me under. We are not talking a few hundred dollars a year like in the South and West. Depending on your county a modest home in Illinois can cost $5,000 to $15,000 a year for property tax.

@Deja
the better argument: at a time when college grads are increasingly finding it difficult to obtain college-degree jobs, why are we focusing so much on making it easier to go to college instead of what to do with these people once they are out?

He also has an intriguing idea for dealing with the cost, which he agrees is way out of proportion to what is delivered. He would have college grads who have borrowed to go to school pay 10% of their income for 10 yrs towards paying back the loans. Once 10 yrs have elapsed, the loan balance, regardless of amount, would be forgiven.

#8.1.1.1.1
. . . are opposed to it being funded with a tax. If he could explain how it's not a tax, he'd have more support of regular people.

I had not forgotten your love affair with that imaginary Mason Dixon Line, as if everyone and everything north of it is magically superior, especially online; eveything and everyone south of it is shit stuck to your superior shoe. That attitude says a lot more about those who have it, than southerners.

More than 100 programs can help you erase some or all of your debt. Here's how to find out if you qualify for one.

By Donna Rosato, March 13, 2019

The 12-year-old federal Public Service Loan Forgiveness program (PSLF) is one of the bigger programs. Under PSLF you can wipe out your remaining student debt after making 10 years' worth of on-time payments if you work in a qualifying public-sector job.

But there are more than 100 federal and state-based programs, though smaller or more specifically targeted, that can help you shed debt faster. There are also a number of special situations in which you can get your loans discharged without penalties.

Mollie

I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne

#8.1.1.1.1.1 the better argument: at a time when college grads are increasingly finding it difficult to obtain college-degree jobs, why are we focusing so much on making it easier to go to college instead of what to do with these people once they are out?

He also has an intriguing idea for dealing with the cost, which he agrees is way out of proportion to what is delivered. He would have college grads who have borrowed to go to school pay 10% of their income for 10 yrs towards paying back the loans. Once 10 yrs have elapsed, the loan balance, regardless of amount, would be forgiven.

@Deja
It's a tiny sales tax (often 0.025% or 0.05%) on the amount traded. Stock, bond, mutual fund, and some other transactions would be included. Bernie cited it as a source of funding for his M4A proposal in 2016, IIRC, and the amount it would bring in would be $50-100 billion a year. It's just one of the taxes that have been discussed, and several will need to be imposed on the rich and on capital to fund what the country needs.

If Bernie is elected I'd love to see him tap Warren as his Treasury Secretary, to put together a strong tax package to fund programs we need. Between that and a DoD audit that would lead to a slashing of the Defense budget, we could get all the money we need.

#8.1.1
I read or heard somewhere that he proposed to collect a very small fee on certain types of stock trades. I don't recall the exact details, but it wasn't a tax. The fact that I can't remember it shows how much msm coverage it got. I dooo recall Trump asking Russia to find Hillary's 30,000 emails, and Her Heinous calling a large chunk of the population a basket of deplorables, though. Sigh . . .

I agree that he needs to explain it, repeatedly. Maybe the msm will screw up and actually give it coverage, especially since it wasn't an across the board tax. Of course, having the population think it's a tax is better for the mainstream candidates.

@Dallasdoc
I had mistakenly thought it was a fee. Thanks for clearing it up. Still, it's not a tax that would be required of everyone, just those with money invested in stocks and bonds.

Poor people would, likely, not pay a dime.

#8.1.1.1
It's a tiny sales tax (often 0.025% or 0.05%) on the amount traded. Stock, bond, mutual fund, and some other transactions would be included. Bernie cited it as a source of funding for his M4A proposal in 2016, IIRC, and the amount it would bring in would be $50-100 billion a year. It's just one of the taxes that have been discussed, and several will need to be imposed on the rich and on capital to fund what the country needs.

If Bernie is elected I'd love to see him tap Warren as his Treasury Secretary, to put together a strong tax package to fund programs we need. Between that and a DoD audit that would lead to a slashing of the Defense budget, we could get all the money we need.

@Deja
If you buy and hold, you don't pay it except on the purchase or sale. It would hit traders in the markets, especially the high-frequency computerized folks, whom it would probably put out of business. Compared to the fees Wall Street companies charge their customers, the tax is a drop in the bucket, but it would hit the big boys and active traders hard. That's the best argument for it.

#8.1.1.1.2
I had mistakenly thought it was a fee. Thanks for clearing it up. Still, it's not a tax that would be required of everyone, just those with money invested in stocks and bonds.

I think I understand your sentiments, but, from what I've heard at various Congressional hearings, I'm pretty certain that it's not emphasized (by Bernie, or any lawmaker) a great deal, because they don't expect to do it, except for Community College. Which, I think even 'O' endorsed. And, which is being done in some states, including one of our residences (TN).

I've posted about this, but, it's been a while. My material is on an now defunct laptop, or, I'd furnish you some links.

Bottom line, our Dept of Labor has reported that approximately 2/3's of jobs that are created, don't require a 4-year degree. So, it wouldn't be cost effective to educate folks (of any age) for jobs that aren't going to be there. (Again, according to our own government statistics.) It's called a 'gig' economy, for a reason. Seriously, because of globalization, the US is basically a service economy.

My 'guess' is that the reason he (Bernie) talks it at all, is to incentivize college youth to vote for Dems. Now, there have been a couple of relatively recent bipartisan laws that have passed--under 'O' and under DT--which are intended to help folks get OJT, trade certificates/training, apprenticeships, etc. But, they don't include assisting with a 4-year degree.

At one time, lawmakers were proposing a tightening up of Pell Grants--so that most adults would not qualify for one. IOW, they wanted anyone over age of roughly 25 to go into trades, or get training for "certificates."

For example, the two Education Committees (in the House and Senate) were considering funneling adults into jobs such as CNA (Certified Nursing Aids) or orderlies in skilled nursing facilities, etc. Not certain if that got passed. I thought it was ludicrous, BTW.

Several states have proceeded with the 2-year degree programs. Even TN, with its former billionaire Governor Haslam, instituted one.

But, unless something drastic changes, can't imagine that on a federal level, anything other than programs which provide a bit more loan forbearance, or, perhaps that lower interest rates on ed loans, are coming down the pike.

Instead, lawmakers of both Parties are working with corporations to get folks trained for the jobs that 'Big Business' wants filled. Guess you could say that it's business they're looking out for--not citizens, young or old.

Have a good one.

Mollie

I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne

. . . he's old enough to know the state of California had a free university system when he and I were young, so it's nothing radical and nothing new. He's making the case, but I feel he could make it clearer and stronger.

I agree. People think their taxes will be used to pay for people like Trump's or Clinton's grandkids' tuition. Or, that their investments will be taxed to pay it. They don't think they should have to pay for anyone else to go to college when no one else paid for them, their kids, etc. to go. It's a fair point.

He needs to explain it simply, and repeatedly.

He still has the whole selling out, or rolling over and playing dead in 2016 to explain. Even then, some of us who had our votes stolen (imo), won't go back. That's not even taking into consideration his foreign policy votes, and the whole electronic voting farce as a whole.

Interesting take on "electing" him to facilitate internal change within the corrupt Dem party in this essay. Though I don't see that party allowing it. I think it'll be Creepy Uncle Joe vs Pussy Grabber in Chief. At least they have something in common. Gag!

That CNA/Orderly part would not be terribly bad if CNAs and Orderlies were paid enough to survive, but they're not, despite the loads of money billed to Medicare, etc. The fat cats up top get it all.

Trade schools and apprenticeships are cool as long as manufacturing stays here. I guess plumbers and electricians will still have work until AI takes that over.

A four year degree landed my daughter a job at a gym. She really wants to pursue her master's and get a museum curator job, but considering the low number of positions, and those basically being "until death" types of jobs, it'll be a tall mountain to climb, especially if she doesn't take out loans, which she is refusing to do.

My degree has me living, basically, at the poverty level. If I had a child living here, I'd qualify for food stamps. Sure, we get lots of paid time off, but you can't trade that in for cash if emergency car repairs or something like that pops up. (I'm in a job that will allow student loan forgiveness after 10 years of payments. $26/mo)

I think I understand your sentiments, but, from what I've heard at various Congressional hearings, I'm pretty certain that it's not emphasized (by Bernie, or any lawmaker) a great deal, because they don't expect to do it, except for Community College. Which, I think even 'O' endorsed. And, which is being done in some states, including one of our residences (TN).

I've posted about this, but, it's been a while. My material is on an now defunct laptop, or, I'd furnish you some links.

Bottom line, our Dept of Labor has reported that approximately 2/3's of jobs that are created, don't require a 4-year degree. So, it wouldn't be cost effective to educate folks (of any age) for jobs that aren't going to be there. (Again, according to our own government statistics.) It's called a 'gig' economy, for a reason. Seriously, because of globalization, the US is basically a service economy.

My 'guess' is that the reason he (Bernie) talks it at all, is to incentivize college youth to vote for Dems. Now, there have been a couple of relatively recent bipartisan laws that have passed--under 'O' and under DT--which are intended to help folks get OJT, trade certificates/training, apprenticeships, etc. But, they don't include assisting with a 4-year degree.

At one time, lawmakers were proposing a tightening up of Pell Grants--so that most adults would not qualify for one. IOW, they wanted anyone over age of roughly 25 to go into trades, or get training for "certificates."

For example, the two Education Committees (in the House and Senate) were considering funneling adults into jobs such as CNA (Certified Nursing Aids) or orderlies in skilled nursing facilities, etc. Not certain if that got passed. I thought it was ludicrous, BTW.

Several states have proceeded with the 2-year degree programs. Even TN, with its former billionaire Governor Haslam, instituted one.

But, unless something drastic changes, can't imagine that on a federal level, anything other than programs which provide a bit more loan forbearance, or, perhaps that lower interest rates on ed loans, are coming down the pike.

Instead, lawmakers of both Parties are working with corporations to get folks trained for the jobs that 'Big Business' wants filled. Guess you could say that it's business they're looking out for--not citizens, young or old.

Have a good one.

Mollie

I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne

what I was told to consider, when I had to decide whether or not I would fight retaliatory measures leveled at me due to whistleblowing (regarding embezzlement/financial malfeasance of a superior). I followed that advice; it served me well.

AFAIC, those same standards will apply when I make my decision as to which candidate I support for President.

Having said that, in order to garner my support, a candidate must not affiliate with either corrupt legacy Party. But, that's just me. Totally respect that others may feel differently.

Also, know it's probably not gonna happen, but, must admit that I still hope that Gabbard and/or Bernie will consider an 'Independent' run.

I imagine that we all recognize that we're uber fortunate that JtC (and Joe) are willing to administer this wonderful venue/blogging Community--allowing us to discuss the pressing issues of the day. So, I hope that Everyone--including moi--will do his/her best not to allow our differences of opinion to irrevocably divide us. That would be sad.

Nice weekend to Everyone!

Mollie

I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne

what I was told to consider, when I had to decide whether or not I would fight retaliatory measures leveled at me due to whistleblowing (regarding embezzlement/financial malfeasance of a superior). I followed that advice; it served me well.

AFAIC, those same standards will apply when I make my decision as to which candidate I support for President.

Having said that, in order to garner my support, a candidate must not affiliate with either corrupt legacy Party. But, that's just me. Totally respect that others may feel differently.

Also, know it's probably not gonna happen, but, must admit that I still hope that Gabbard and/or Bernie will consider an 'Independent' run.

I imagine that we all recognize that we're uber fortunate that JtC (and Joe) are willing to administer this wonderful venue/blogging Community--allowing us to discuss the pressing issues of the day. So, I hope that Everyone--including moi--will do his/her best not to allow our differences of opinion to irrevocably divide us. That would be sad.

Nice weekend to Everyone!

Mollie

I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne

was purposely not going into a lot of detail, in order to avoid hijacking this thread.

In a nutshell--the advice I received was that I should "consider my values/principles, and conscience"--in deciding whether or not, I wanted to file suit.

In short, after whistleblowing, I was rewarded at the highest levels of the Bureaucracy, for stepping up to expose illegal activity within my organization. However, both personnel terminations and demotions occurred, as a result of my actions.

In turn, a couple of my superiors who were demoted (not fired) went after me--in retaliation for exposing them. The advice I cited above, was given to me by a much older, but close mentor--again, it was in regard to my deciding "whether or not I should/would go forward with a suit" to refute bogus charges lodged at me.

(You know what they say, "Payback is a *itch." )

I did fight back. And, I won.

My 'takeaway' from that experience--which, BTW, was initiated while I was still in my twenties--is that I should always stand up for what I believe is right, or just.

Don't be cowed by the powerful.

IOW, the proverbial 'little Guy' can win, if the truth is on his side.

(Sorry that I didn't make that clear. Didn't think I should rehash my suit, in gj's political essay.)

Hope that helps.

Mollie

I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne

I'm glad your experience led you to your conclusion and it sounds ultimately positive.

My experience is such that I recommend people to leave their employer rather than waste their efforts and money and physical health, but it really depends on the culture at the employer, I guess, and whether others around you will help. I was abandoned, but I'm glad I pursued it through the court and got a small settlement.

But I will never again stick my neck out on my own. I was very bitter for years about the people who benefited from my efforts (as in employee performance awards of several thousand dollars each were passed out like candy after I filed my complaint), but I'm over it now.

was purposely not going into a lot of detail, in order to avoid hijacking this thread.

In a nutshell--the advice I received was that I should "consider my values/principles, and conscience"--in deciding whether or not, I wanted to file suit.

In short, after whistleblowing, I was rewarded at the highest levels of the Bureaucracy, for stepping up to expose illegal activity within my organization. However, both personnel terminations and demotions occurred, as a result of my actions.

In turn, a couple of my superiors who were demoted (not fired) went after me--in retaliation for exposing them. The advice I cited above, was given to me by a much older, but close mentor--again, it was in regard to my deciding "whether or not I should/would go forward with a suit" to refute bogus charges lodged at me.

(You know what they say, "Payback is a *itch." )

I did fight back. And, I won.

My 'takeaway' from that experience--which, BTW, was initiated while I was still in my twenties--is that I should always stand up for what I believe is right, or just.

Don't be cowed by the powerful.

IOW, the proverbial 'little Guy' can win, if the truth is on his side.

(Sorry that I didn't make that clear. Didn't think I should rehash my suit, in gj's political essay.)

Hope that helps.

Mollie

I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne

to your POV. Sounds as though I was a bit luckier, since I had strong moral and legal support. Generally, I tend to take a pass on advising others in similar situations--of which, there probably aren't that many.

All I can say is, if I had it to do over again--I would. And, I count my blessings every day that I went on to have a long, wonderful, and fulfilling federal career.

As they say, "all's well, that ends well."

BTW, glad to hear that you were also vindicated.

Mollie

I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne

#9.1.1 you didn't want to threadjack. (I don't either but here I go) Sorry!

I'm glad your experience led you to your conclusion and it sounds ultimately positive.

My experience is such that I recommend people to leave their employer rather than waste their efforts and money and physical health, but it really depends on the culture at the employer, I guess, and whether others around you will help. I was abandoned, but I'm glad I pursued it through the court and got a small settlement.

But I will never again stick my neck out on my own. I was very bitter for years about the people who benefited from my efforts (as in employee performance awards of several thousand dollars each were passed out like candy after I filed my complaint), but I'm over it now.

Bernie and others have filed bills, and Pelosi is trying for an end around play. I am really looking to see what Bernie does. Which side of the road will he walk? As a dem, or an independent. Hopefully he throws a chair at Pelosi (/s) and calls her out for what she is .

Bernie and others have filed bills, and Pelosi is trying for an end around play. I am really looking to see what Bernie does. Which side of the road will he walk? As a dem, or an independent. Hopefully he throws a chair at Pelosi (/s) and calls her out for what she is .

@dfarrah
Neroli Essential liquid comes from the flowers that are very different kind of flower and most of the people haven’t seen in their life. It was much popular because of the Princess of Nerola in the 17th century who belongs to Italy. She always uses this lubricant that was with fragrance and also adds into her bath. It is considered as the most important ingredient in the making of perfumes. It is also very effective skin product used in most of the cosmetics. It is very effective for calming nerves and circulation of blood in the body. It is also used in making of Coca-Cola. The price of this product is $354 for each ounce.

That, or

Ambergris. Ambergris (/ˈæmbərɡriːs/ or /ˈæmbərɡrɪs/, Latin: ambra grisea, Old French: ambre gris), ambergrease, or grey amber, is a solid, waxy, flammable substance of a dull grey or blackish colour produced in the digestive system of sperm whales.[1] Freshly produced ambergris has a marine, fecal odor. However, it acquires a sweet, earthy scent as it ages, commonly likened to the fragrance of rubbing alcohol without the vaporous chemical astringency.[2]

Ambergris has been very highly valued by perfumers as a fixative that allows the scent to last much longer, although it has been mostly replaced by synthetic ambroxan.[3] Dogs are known to be attracted to the smell of ambergris and are therefore sometimes used by ambergris searchers.

#10.1 Neroli Essential liquid comes from the flowers that are very different kind of flower and most of the people haven’t seen in their life. It was much popular because of the Princess of Nerola in the 17th century who belongs to Italy. She always uses this lubricant that was with fragrance and also adds into her bath. It is considered as the most important ingredient in the making of perfumes. It is also very effective skin product used in most of the cosmetics. It is very effective for calming nerves and circulation of blood in the body. It is also used in making of Coca-Cola. The price of this product is $354 for each ounce.

That, or

Ambergris. Ambergris (/ˈæmbərɡriːs/ or /ˈæmbərɡrɪs/, Latin: ambra grisea, Old French: ambre gris), ambergrease, or grey amber, is a solid, waxy, flammable substance of a dull grey or blackish colour produced in the digestive system of sperm whales.[1] Freshly produced ambergris has a marine, fecal odor. However, it acquires a sweet, earthy scent as it ages, commonly likened to the fragrance of rubbing alcohol without the vaporous chemical astringency.[2]

Ambergris has been very highly valued by perfumers as a fixative that allows the scent to last much longer, although it has been mostly replaced by synthetic ambroxan.[3] Dogs are known to be attracted to the smell of ambergris and are therefore sometimes used by ambergris searchers.

if having a real chance of winning isn't part of your agenda then you are doing politics wrong.

Why should I vote only for those who - according to politically common knowledge - have a real chance of winning? I never understood why people think like that when it comes to voting. May be if your voting system in the US would be a democratically fairer system, you wouldn't even have to care about who is supposedly having a chance of winning.

I vote for Nobody ...
(be still my beating heart - I love me my Bernie and my Tulsi and some of their friends)

One thing I don’t see brought up in all these discussions of what Hecate memorably called “The Presidenting” is the other branches of government.

If we want to reallocate national racehorses (thank you Gilda Radner!) to human needs from the military and financial sectors, then we need to consider who will pull in voters for reasonable Congresscritters. Who will in turn help turn the judiciary away from its current role as a libertarian wankfest. As Bernie gains momentum in our absurd election cycle, it helps people like Tulsi come forward and gain support.

Which is a Good Thing.

up

8 users have voted.

—

We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg

@Hawkfish
I think coattails have been hard to see in most recent elections. Coattails come when one party has a brand that is preferable to the other's. Neither one has had a brand worth buying for a long time, so I suspect most voters view elections as a dispiriting LOTE torture session. The jazzed-up partisans are becoming a lot thinner on the ground.

Somebody like Bernie can run a campaign that could change politics and completely reinvent the Democratic brand -- or at least take it back to what it once was. Somebody who invents a desirable brand is going to have coattails like crazy. That's probably the only situation in which you'll see them. Negative coattails are probably more common, and are the same argument in reverse. Just ask Hillary or Barack.

One thing I don’t see brought up in all these discussions of what Hecate memorably called “The Presidenting” is the other branches of government.

If we want to reallocate national racehorses (thank you Gilda Radner!) to human needs from the military and financial sectors, then we need to consider who will pull in voters for reasonable Congresscritters. Who will in turn help turn the judiciary away from its current role as a libertarian wankfest. As Bernie gains momentum in our absurd election cycle, it helps people like Tulsi come forward and gain support.

The brilliance of this Bernie Sanders ad is it is a general election ad. Trump’s the target. Team Bernie is reassuring Democratic primary voters he has what it takes to go one-on-one with Trump. It addresses the Jim Messina objections. #NotMeUs#NotMeUspic.twitter.com/ZJheICU9lR